Thanks for pushing the frontier of interspecies comparisons!
But we limited our time on these reports due to finding that, historically, within our CEAs, factors like these did not end up carrying the most weight or being the source of highest variability. For example, the cost of an intervention can vary by several orders of magnitude, and more logistical factors were more often the deciding factor when deciding between the most promising looking interventions.
I understand there is not much variation in the total welfare score, but this may not apply to the moral weight (which varies a lot based on the number of neurons, for instance). So species can potentially be a major factor for prioritisation.
Some questions:
How resilient are the signs (positive or negative) of your estimates for the total welfare score?
Have there been any other efforts to quantify the welfare of wild animals?
I am particularly interested in the answers for terrestrial arthropods (i.e. the “wild bug”).
Thanks for pushing the frontier of interspecies comparisons!
I understand there is not much variation in the total welfare score, but this may not apply to the moral weight (which varies a lot based on the number of neurons, for instance). So species can potentially be a major factor for prioritisation.
Some questions:
How resilient are the signs (positive or negative) of your estimates for the total welfare score?
Have there been any other efforts to quantify the welfare of wild animals?
I am particularly interested in the answers for terrestrial arthropods (i.e. the “wild bug”).